Car sold illegally. What is my position?

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

There could be an argument for loss of chance, but I suppose the question would be how long would the OP have intended to keep the car, and whether or not the car could have depreciated in value or continue to increase. He will need to prove that there is a real/substantial chance that he would have made a profit, given that the car was sold for more than he paid then that sort of satisfies it but as above, depends on the likelihood of whether the car is going to increase in price continually. He can certainly claim loss of profit, maybe the difference between what he paid and the market value of the car, or at least what the car was sold for as des8 mentioned.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

But how can the 1st buyer claim fraud when there was no element of fraud when the sale for the car was made? buyer agrees to pay X, seller accepts and that is that. There is no false rep, abuse of position or failure to disclose when the contract was made between the two parties. Am I missing something?"

Fraud happened after the seller and buyer 1 made the contract. Hence there was legal sale. After sale there could have been a fraud by the seller as seller no longer held ownership of the car as he held possession only. He had no legal right to sell the car as it wasn't his for sale. So when the already paid seller sold the car to buyer 2, it was done so under the presumption he held title ie ownership, but he merely had possession. Up to the point of the seller revoking his offer or the buyer 2 accepting the seller's offer, it was a complete contract (ie agreement) where title transferred from seller to buyer 1, title was the receipt of sale. Registration documents indicate possession but not title.

"Can you explain this, I don't understand this point either. You said that s24 doesn't apply because the seller wasn't in possession of the goods but the above doesn't explain your reason why?

s24 states


So, the seller refuses to hand the goods over (breach of contract but still in possession after sale as payment already made) but then goes on to sell the goods to a third party, presumably without the third party being told that it had already sold and therefore s24 applies.

Title is held by the seller up to the point of buyer purchasing, and buyer acquires title at the point of delivery. No one can hold anything what they don't own is paraphrasing the rule 'nemo dat quod non habet.' Seller has the right to stop goods in transit etc. However the following are some exceptions to the rule 'nemo dat quod non habet' S.24 and s.25 are some of these exceptions, meant to protect the seller and buyer from any comebacks. s.24 is a right to keep possession of the goods until the buyer pays him, so the seller is said to have a lien (retains possession) on the goods. s.25 protects buyer 2 where he did not know seller held a lien.

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Title is held by the seller up to the point of buyer purchasing, and buyer acquires title at the point of delivery. No one can hold anything what they don't own is paraphrasing the rule 'nemo dat quod non habet.' Seller has the right to stop goods in transit etc. However the following are some exceptions to the rule 'nemo dat quod non habet' S.24 and s.25 are some of these exceptions, meant to protect the seller and buyer from any comebacks. s.24 is a right to keep possession of the goods until the buyer pays him, so the seller is said to have a lien (retains possession) on the goods. s.25 protects buyer 2 where he did not know seller held a lien.

So after all of that you do agree then that the 1st buyer cannot recover the vehicle based on what you just said there.

As for fraud, yes you could say fraud potentially but only against buyer 2, not buyer 1. We are going off track now, the solution is for the OP to sue the seller both in contract and tort to get maximum damages.

[Amethyst]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Re-reading the original post

Deposit paid on car
Full balance paid - payment accepted - is this where title passes?
Goes to collect car - seller backs out of deal and attempts to refund money
Buyer only accepts a partial refund ( not sure how much % wise? - does it matter how much? it seems sensible not to accept the refund but to accept a partial refund could be problematic ? )

THEN
seller sells to someone else


So if the first argument that title had passed on full payment the car wasn't the sellers to sell and can be sued for breach of contract.

The second buyer though has good title (IF he had no knowledge of the first sale)

Is that right ?

( genuinely interested btw - it hinges on when title passes and I think its on acceptance of the payment ??)

[Amethyst]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

So after all of that you do agree then that the 1st buyer cannot recover the vehicle based on what you just said there.

As for fraud, yes you could say fraud potentially but only against buyer 2, not buyer 1. We are going off track now, the solution is for the OP to sue the seller both in contract and tort to get maximum damages.

oops sorry R0b & Openlaw, crossed posts there.

The 1st buyer can't recover the vehicle as second owner has good title ( unless he was aware )

OP can sue the seller for the breach of contract for the rest of the money that he initially refused to have refunded, plus damages/compensation for the hassle/possibly loss of chance but whether it is worth it or not depends heavily on the value of the car, but sadly I don't think that is what the OP is after, he wanted the damn car....

I think it is important to work out when / if the contract between OP and Seller ended - and the title passed back to the seller enabling him to sell to the second buyer ( if at all)

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

So after all of that you do agree then that the 1st buyer cannot recover the vehicle based on what you just said there."

The vehicle cannot be recovered through normal contract/ tort remedies. (However based on equity the car could be recovered if it were proved that the sale was fraudulent, a claim in rem instead of the person (NB i think personam means against person ie damages, and rem is claim against the property itself...).

The second buyer has refuge under s.47, SGA 1979 actually. So s.24, 25 are meant to protect seller because they're seller remedies (been long time since I studied commercial law...besides it's very complex anyway). I think there are 7 exceptions including estoppel.
"47.— Effect of sub-sale etc. by buyer.
(1) Subject to this Act, the unpaid seller's right of lien or retention or stoppage in transit is not
affected by any sale or other disposition of the goods which the buyer may have made, unless the
seller has assented to it.
(2) Where a document of title to goods has been lawfully transferred to any person as buyer or
owner of the goods, and that person transfers the document to a person who takes it in good faith
and for valuable consideration, then—
(a) if the last-mentioned transfer was by way of sale the unpaid seller's right of lien or
retention or stoppage in transit is defeated; and
(b) if the last-mentioned transfer was made by way of pledge or other disposition for value,
the unpaid seller's right of lien or retention or stoppage in transit can only be exercised
subject to the rights of the transferee."




As for fraud, yes you could say fraud potentially but only against buyer 2, not buyer 1. We are going off track now, the solution is for the OP to sue the seller both in contract and tort to get maximum damages.

So no Op cannot claim the vehicle back based on s.47. SGA but possibly can based on equity property law principles.

[The Chippy]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Once again, thanks everyone for your input.

Just to clarify a few things:

I never accepted not asked for a refund. I was told they had transferred the balance (not the deposit) back into my account.

The car was sold to the second buyer for almost double the price I paid originally.
It was also sold with absolutely no paperwork and history, thus demonstrating how rare this model is.
It is worth three times what I originally paid for it if it was sold with the full service history and paperwork I currently hold.
Original purchase price £25,000.

I have legal cover so I am not worried about the costs of getting this vehicle back - if indeed this is possible.
The vehicle is so rare, I have not seen one for sale for six years, anywhere in the world, which is why I want this particular vehicle back.
Standard models of this vehicle go for huge sums of money without their paperwork so to find not be not a rare model but with all if it's credentials is just unheard of.

[des8]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Thanks everyone for chipping in after OL's post 11.
I did start to comment, but deleted my post as I guessed how pointless it was going to be as there was probably going to be a lecture on some
ridiculous aspect.
So I went to bed after a wee dram!:tinysmile_twink_t2:

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Once again, thanks everyone for your input.

Just to clarify a few things:

I never accepted not asked for a refund. I was told they had transferred the balance (not the deposit) back into my account.

The car was sold to the second buyer for almost double the price I paid originally.
It was also sold with absolutely no paperwork and history, thus demonstrating how rare this model is.
It is worth three times what I originally paid for it if it was sold with the full service history and paperwork I currently hold.
Original purchase price £25,000.

I have legal cover so I am not worried about the costs of getting this vehicle back - if indeed this is possible.
The vehicle is so rare, I have not seen one for sale for six years, anywhere in the world, which is why I want this particular vehicle back.
Standard models of this vehicle go for huge sums of money without their paperwork so to find not be not a rare model but with all if it's credentials is just unheard of.

If you have legal cover then you should be consulting them and they will advise your best options. I'm afraid though it may be unlikely that you can recover the vehicle due to the fact that the 2nd buyer has purchased the vehicle in good faith and no notice of any sale (unless you can prove otherwise) which means ownership passes to that 2nd buyer. The fact that the car is a rare one and if money is not an adequate remedy then the it would be up to the judge to decide whether or not an alternative remedy can be given. s25 of the Sale of Goods is a statutory exemption and the judge can't dis-apply that.

@Openlaw15 - since you've freely admitted that it's been a while since you have studied commercial law, might I suggest you do some reading prior to posting? s47 SGA has absolutely no relevance to this matter as it relates to the Sellers remedies - the seller has no remedy here it is the buyer. S25 is not intended to protect the seller at all, if that were the case then the buyer would have no remedy against the seller for breach of contract?! It is designed to protect those who have purchased something in good faith without notice that the goods have already been sold.

[paulajayne]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Out of interest what car?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

If you have legal cover then you should be consulting them and they will advise your best options. I'm afraid though it may be unlikely that you can recover the vehicle due to the fact that the 2nd buyer has purchased the vehicle in good faith and no notice of any sale (unless you can prove otherwise) which means ownership passes to that 2nd buyer. The fact that the car is a rare one and if money is not an adequate remedy then the it would be up to the judge to decide whether or not an alternative remedy can be given. s25 of the Sale of Goods is a statutory exemption and the judge can't dis-apply that.

@Openlaw15 - since you've freely admitted that it's been a while since you have studied commercial law, might I suggest you do some reading prior to posting? s47 SGA has absolutely no relevance to this matter as it relates to the Sellers remedies - the seller has no remedy here it is the buyer. S25 is not intended to protect the seller at all, if that were the case then the buyer would have no remedy against the seller for breach of contract?! It is designed to protect those who have purchased something in good faith without notice that the goods have already been sold.

Well Rob I could equally say those persons who not understand commercial law and its murky waters, ie those who have never studied the area of law, should be better placed not to make commentary. However, I will not do that even though s.24 is irrelevant. It is such a complex area the relevant areas for resale to a second buyer are s.25 and s.47 - and case precedents that go back around a 150 years.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Once again, thanks everyone for your input.

Just to clarify a few things:

I never accepted not asked for a refund. I was told they had transferred the balance (not the deposit) back into my account.

The car was sold to the second buyer for almost double the price I paid originally.
It was also sold with absolutely no paperwork and history, thus demonstrating how rare this model is.
It is worth three times what I originally paid for it if it was sold with the full service history and paperwork I currently hold.
Original purchase price £25,000.

I have legal cover so I am not worried about the costs of getting this vehicle back - if indeed this is possible.
The vehicle is so rare, I have not seen one for sale for six years, anywhere in the world, which is why I want this particular vehicle back.
Standard models of this vehicle go for huge sums of money without their paperwork so to find not be not a rare model but with all if it's credentials is just unheard of.

Insured; Sold to you for 25k; resale to 2nd buyer: £50,000 ...are the material terms. It would be helpful where Ops gave full details as it's hard to help if the main details have not been provided..but they initially do not know what would be the legalese, so it's ok. Fraud 2006 Act: misrepresentation and either gain or another's loss = fraud. It is almost certainly fraud given the numbers involved and the facts. The only reason this was not theft is that the seller assented to the sale. Had this been a case of the car being at the garage and the car stolen (ie theft 'intention', to 'permanently deprive', and: without 'owner/s' 'consent') it would have been theft. Let's say in our analogy that the car was purchased (contract) by way of deposit (secures sale) so title had transferred from the seller to buyer 1. In our analogy also it transpires that the car was ringed (ie number plate, other done) to make it difficult to identity, the illegal car also sold to an unsuspecting buyer 2 (innocent party). Buyer 2 would forfeit the car to its original owner, buyer 1. Why, because buyer 2 has purchased a stolen car? So what remedy is available to buyer 2? Do the thieves have any land ie homes, if so buyer 2's remedy is a land charge on their home. The only difference in real terms between my analogy and Op's case is that the seller gave consent to a sale.

[des8]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Ye Gods.. he makes it up as he goes along!
Where was there ever a question of fraud, or car ringing/
Dealer sold car, was paid but failed to deliver as he had resold to another person, who has purchased in good faith.
Chances of first purchaser obtaining car are virtually nil.
His remedy is to obtain VALUE of vehicle from dealer

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Im afraid I am utterly confused, this has nothing to do with buyer 2. The seller did not commit fraud or theft to buyer 1 in any way shape or form it was a contract for sale of goods and the seller held the car as a bailee until it was due to be collected. I don't know what full details of the facts you need? The OP bought a car, it was sold to a third party, what are his rights?

Rather than continuously bang my head against a wall going round in circles I'm going to bow out of this one.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

It is fraud because the seller did not own the vehicle. The seller sold something that did not belong to him to a second buyer. It is therefore a misrepresentation for a 25k gain = fraud, ie illegal. The seller was paid so seller was holding the vehicle for buyer 1. Seller 2 cannot rely on any defences - he was just a greedy person who sold the car illegally. Had the seller been unpaid he would therefore have had every right to sale - the problem is the seller was paid.